How Attitudes Affect Farmers’ Preferences for Biotechnology: the Case of Corn Growers in Brazil Alexandre Gori Maia Institute of Economics - University of Campinas (UNICAMP) Email: [email protected]Jose Maria Jardim da Silveira Institute of Economics – University of Campinas (UNICAMP)
13
Embed
How Attitudes Affect Farmers’ Preferences for Biotechnology: the Case of Corn Growers in Brazil
How Attitudes Affect Farmers’ Preferences for Biotechnology: the Case of Corn Growers in Brazil. Alexandre Gori Maia Institute of Economics - University of Campinas (UNICAMP) Email: [email protected] Jose Maria Jardim da Silveira Institute of Economics – University of Campinas (UNICAMP) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
How Attitudes Affect Farmers’ Preferences for Biotechnology: the Case of Corn Growers in Brazil
Alexandre Gori MaiaInstitute of Economics - University of Campinas
• Utility: the utility for alternative j of individual i :
Conjoint Analysis – Rank Ordered Probit Modelo
Introduction Background Material & Methods Results Conclusion
17 th ICABR, 2013 Gori Maia & Jardim da Silveira
ijijijU
• Probability: if famer i choose alternative j in comparison with k: )Pr()Pr( ikiji UUjY
• Ordered Probit: Making some assumptions about the error term () : ik
ij
eejYi
)Pr(
• Model: the expected utility can be modeled as:
jjiij zx
Characteristics of individu
als
Characteristics of alternatives
7/13
ResultsAttitudes
• Questions related to different themes (environment, trust, risk perception, knowledge);
Introduction Background Material & Methods Results Conclusion
17 th ICABR, 2013 Gori Maia & Jardim da Silveira
Question Totally Agree
Parcially Agree Neutral Partially
DisagreeTotally
Disagree1. The scientific research has improved agricultural production 70.5 19.0 5.8 2.4 2.4
2. The scientific research has improved human life. 63.4 22.0 7.8 4.1 2.73. The human has caused serious damage to the environment. 68.0 18.4 6.1 3.1 4.4
4. The agricultural production has caused serious damage to the environment. 32.9 27.7 7.5 9.6 22.3
5. The use of pesticides in agriculture has caused serious health problems. 73.2 11.3 6.5 2.4 6.5
6. The government policies in agriculture is reliable. 21.6 21.9 17.5 13.0 26.07. The public agencies that develop agricultural research (EMBRAPA, EMATER, EPAGRI, ...) are reliable.
53.1 19.0 15.3 6.5 6.1
8. Private companies that produce seeds for agriculture are reliable. 39.0 19.9 16.1 11.6 13.4
9. There are corn seeds that are resistant to agricultural pests. 71.4 5.8 11.2 6.1 5.4
10. There are corn seeds that are resistant to herbicides. 66.9 8.5 14.7 3.8 6.1
11. There are corn seeds that are more productive than conventional ones 79.3 8.8 6.3 1.7 3.9
12. There are types of maize cultivation that cause less impact on the environment. 55.8 10.5 18.0 3.8 11.9
13. The fluctiation of the price paid to the producer is always a factor of high risk in corn production. 61.6 10.9 7.5 3.7 16.3
14. The climate fluctuation is always a factor of high risk in corn production. 85.4 9.5 1.0 1.4 2.7
15. The fluctuation of the price of inputs is always a factor of high risk in corn production. 72.5 8.8 6.4 4.4 7.8
16. The rise of pests is always a factor of high risk in corn production. 69.8 17.0 3.1 5.4 4.8
17. The rise of weeds is always a factor of high risk factor in corn production 58.3 18.8 3.8 9.7 9.4
Question Totally Agree
Parcially Agree Neutral Partially
DisagreeTotally
Disagree1. The scientific research has improved agricultural production 70.5 19.0 5.8 2.4 2.4
2. The scientific research has improved human life. 63.4 22.0 7.8 4.1 2.73. The human has caused serious damage to the environment. 68.0 18.4 6.1 3.1 4.4
4. The agricultural production has caused serious damage to the environment. 32.9 27.7 7.5 9.6 22.3
5. The use of pesticides in agriculture has caused serious health problems. 73.2 11.3 6.5 2.4 6.5
6. The government policies in agriculture is reliable. 21.6 21.9 17.5 13.0 26.07. The public agencies that develop agricultural research (EMBRAPA, EMATER, EPAGRI, ...) are reliable.
53.1 19.0 15.3 6.5 6.1
8. Private companies that produce seeds for agriculture are reliable. 39.0 19.9 16.1 11.6 13.4
9. There are corn seeds that are resistant to agricultural pests. 71.4 5.8 11.2 6.1 5.4
10. There are corn seeds that are resistant to herbicides. 66.9 8.5 14.7 3.8 6.1
11. There are corn seeds that are more productive than conventional ones 79.3 8.8 6.3 1.7 3.9
12. There are types of maize cultivation that cause less impact on the environment. 55.8 10.5 18.0 3.8 11.9
13. The fluctiation of the price paid to the producer is always a factor of high risk in corn production. 61.6 10.9 7.5 3.7 16.3
14. The climate fluctuation is always a factor of high risk in corn production. 85.4 9.5 1.0 1.4 2.7
15. The fluctuation of the price of inputs is always a factor of high risk in corn production. 72.5 8.8 6.4 4.4 7.8
16. The rise of pests is always a factor of high risk in corn production. 69.8 17.0 3.1 5.4 4.8
17. The rise of weeds is always a factor of high risk factor in corn production 58.3 18.8 3.8 9.7 9.4
• Farmers see positively scientific research and agriculture, as well they see negatively the use of pesticides;
• Skepticism in relation to the impact of agriculture on environment;
• They trust more in public than private agricultural agencies;
• High knowledge about types of GM corn;
• Climate instability and the rise of pests are the main factors of risk;
8/13
ResultsFactor Analysis
• 5 common factors (Fi), which explained 53% of the total variability;
Introduction Background Material & Methods Results Conclusion
Introduction Background Material & Methods Results Conclusion
17 th ICABR, 2013 Gori Maia & Jardim da Silveira
• Characteristics of the alternatives (zj): Lower (1 for price lower than average) and Higher (1 for price higher than average);
ik
ij
eejYi
)Pr( jjiij zx
• Characteristics of the individuals (xj): • Area: area in hectares;• D_Bt (1 for Bt farmer), D_RH (1 for RH farmer),
D_Hybrid (1 for hybrid farmer) and D_Variety (1 for variety farmer);
• Factor1 – Factor5: scores for the 5 common factors;• Two models:• Unrestricted: whole set of variables;• Restricted: without dummy variables for type of farmer;
11/13
ResultsStated Preferences• Price: no evidences that prices affect stated preferences;
Introduction Background Material & Methods Results Conclusion
17 th ICABR, 2013 Gori Maia & Jardim da Silveira
• Area: producers with larger areas are more likely to adopt Bt corn; • Type of farmer: farmers cultivating GM seed are less likely to adopt non-GM seeds;
• Trust in scientific research: the trust in scientific research is positively related to the propensity to adopt GM seeds;
• Knowledge: the lower the knowledge with GM seed, the lower the propensity to adopt Bt seed;
• Environmental attitudes: the higher the environmental skepticism, the higher the propensity to adopt Bt seeds;
12/13
Finals Considerations• Characteristics: farmers see positively the role of scientific research on agriculture and they are more skeptical in relation to the impacts of agriculture on the environment;• Revealed preferences: GM growers have higher trust in agricultural agencies and in scientific research. On the other hand, they are more environmentally skeptic;• Stated preferences: the propensity to adopt GM seed (specially Bt) are positively affect by area, trust in scientific research, knowledge about GM seeds and environmental skepticism. Moreover, farmers tend to be averse to
changes;
Thanks!
Introduction Background Material & Methods Results Conclusion 13/13